Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Faith in the game.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> RE: Faith in the game. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/3/2016 2:11:22 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2297
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage
The spotting system needs looking at.
Nowdays if the unit has thermals...


Nowadays, 2016+, may be a focus for a future game, but THIS current game and the next Southern Storm are still focused on the 1980s. There's a whole lot of consideration that needs to factor in performance, reliability, availability and other stuff for that period. And going back to earlier 1970s technology provides some capability but nowhere near what is was in the late 1980s and certainly not now. For all that, nighttime weather variability could maybe consider starlight and moonlight, and how that affects both unaided spotting and night vision spotting. It's pretty complicated, so we'll have to trust the judgment of the team to come up with reasonable assumptions to model the equipment of the period. And again, these models of a group of vehicles engaging another group of vehicles at some distance becomes a probabilistic crap shoot, so the best we can hope for are "reasonable" results for us as game players to factor into our tactical decision making. Arguing about individual gunnery results is getting too far into the weeds for a tactical level game that is not a pure tank sim.


_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 91
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/3/2016 9:32:02 PM   
Rincovsk


Posts: 61
Joined: 3/13/2016
From: Brazil
Status: offline
"try adjusting your Chieftain/T-80 scenario to reduce the responsiveness of the Chieftains and up the T-80s. See what that does. You can do that in the Scenario editor by selecting the unit and right-mouse click 'Update parameters for this unit'.

Battlebritain, how exactly do you perform that? Changing the training and readiness parameters or do you change something else in the database as well? I would like to try those adjustments out.

Thanks!

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 92
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/3/2016 10:15:32 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: online
It was quite easy.

In the scenario editor click on a unit on the map and then click on the right hand panel and get the OB display up. The OB helps with selecting the units I find.

Now click on a unit you want to change. Right-mouse click and top of the list is 'Unit parameters setup', something like that.

A small dialog will appear and you can edit the units responsiveness and training on the left hand side. Edit to taste, with 99% responsiveness the max.

I think a training rating of 8 is veteran, 7 regular and 6 trained.

If you want to copy the values to all subunits of the unit click the 'Copy values to subunits' tickbox at the top of the dialog before closing the dialog.

Hope this helps, B

(in reply to Rincovsk)
Post #: 93
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/3/2016 10:35:29 PM   
bootlegger267

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 2/27/2013
Status: offline
I have been following this thread since last night....

Like Iron Mike Golf, I was also an M1/M1A1 Master Gunner (Class 85-6) and retired as a 19ZA8 (1SG). I served from 77-97, 14 of those years in Germany. I also TC'd everything from M60A1's, M60A2's, M60A3's, M1's M1IP's, M1A1's, and M1A1 (Heavy). I spent all my Master Gunner time at the Co/Bn Level. Between Iron Mike, Stimpak, and myself, and probably others there is a ton of "real life" experience who play/develop/design this simulation/game. (I am a player, no design affiliation)

Regardless if the game simulates this point, it is nonetheless relevant... "If a tank is outnumbered 5-1 but gets off the first round and achieves a kill, the ratio effectively shifts to 2-1 in favor of he who shoots first and kills." So 10 T80's vs 3 Chieftains and the Chieftains scoring the 1st kill is not a stretch by any means.

This was one of the biggest lessons taken away from the 73 Yom Kippor War. It also was one of the major design points while the M1 series was in development. The tank, with a "Properly Trained Crew and a Nominal Fire Control System", MUST be able to maintain a 1st round hit probability of 90% at 2000m.

Now, 3 Chieftains vs 10 T80's, each sitting in Hull Down positions at 1000m's, each force identifies at the same time, T80 wins, just due to numbers alone.

But take into account Crew Training, Gun Accuracy (the 125mm 2A46M was notoriously inaccurate at ranges beyond 1500m's) Armor Package, Ammunition Composition, Fire Control/Sighting Systems, Environmental Conditions, etc etc....too many variables affect the outcome of ANY tank battle.

ps to Iron Mike Golf.....I never once had to use a "Discrete CCF" (Fancy word for "Zeroing a Tank"). Remember your "Variable Bias's? lol!!!

But I will say My Co MG's and I went through each tanks FCS's with a fine tooth comb each quarter during Services and prior to each Gunnery.... (Thanks to my GD Rep who gave me his "GhostBusters" Manual)

Bootlegger267

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 94
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/3/2016 11:24:09 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: online
It's interesting reading that US M-1 crews used only one or two rounds to 'qualify' a tank.

In some ways that's good in that you're using less ammunition.

It's also good that you're using a fleet average as the benchmark to judge against. Even better if you can get all vehicles in the fleet to pass against it.

My concern is that using only 2 rounds is so small a statistical sample that it's not valid as a statistical sample.

When I was involved in tank gunnery on Challenger 2 it was 25 years ago and things were done differently. For a start we didn't have a fleet value to play with (couldn't use Chieftain or Challenger 1 values).

What the Brits did was to get what values we did have, get an average for that and make an optical graticule to be fitted to all vehicles. The logic for using a graticule was that if you had to fall back on to something due to battle damage the FCS was likely to have gone and an optical graticule was likely to be more robust. So was the thinking anyway.

For qualifying Brit tanks they used 10 rounds as the smallest sample that could be deemed statistically valid.

No doubt 25 years later and with the accountants having taken over they may be using fewer rounds.

Great thread and keep the keep the comments coming,

Cheers, B

(in reply to bootlegger267)
Post #: 95
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 2:48:53 AM   
Stimpak


Posts: 431
Joined: 8/23/2015
From: BC, Canada
Status: offline
Another good tip for Soviets is that you need to always be concentrating your artillery where your tanks are attacking. The Soviets rarely, if ever trained without Artillery both hitting them and their targets, and those possible kills/hits/readiness drops are really important for evening the odds before your tanks even take any losses. It's always incredibly satisfying for me to move my T-72s forward and find that I had accurately guessed where an M1A1 platoon was, and they could not do anything to my tanks because they had just been hit by neutralizing fire in triplicate. In a game where so many factors play into the outcome, something as big as Artillery is more than enough to tip the scale.

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 96
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 3:29:38 AM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
It seems like you just won't accept any result where your Soviet tanks don't win here simply because you want them to. The Soviets may have looked down on the Arab tank crews but they shouldn't have. The Egyptian Army in 1973 was quite good and likely would have won had they not outpaced their air defense. They were well trained and equipped. Not sure why Soviet forces in the same situation would have performed better...

Also, the T-80 isn't that great. At least not so good as to suggest the game is broken because they lose to chieftains with better crews. It was a T-64 with some newer kit. The newer T-72s were better in a lot of ways and so was the newer t-64Bs after the T-80s rolled off the line. So I disagree that there is a generation gap since both tanks were made with 1950's tech. The Chieftans had been upgraded throughout their service time with new fire control systems and kit. So I'm not sure why a T-80 which is an upgraded version of a 1960's tank is supposed to be so much better than an actual upgraded 1960's tank.

it's not that the T-80u is a bad tank...it's that it's not so much better than an upgraded Chieftan as to make up for a less experienced crew.

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 11/4/2016 4:34:04 AM >

(in reply to cbelva)
Post #: 97
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 11:55:14 AM   
bootlegger267

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 2/27/2013
Status: offline
The Fleet "Computer Correction Factors" or CCF's were developed for each type of ammunition and then updated as the ammunition was updated. These were determined by firing rounds from cannons that had various numbers of rounds fired from them (New, 50, 100, 200) Those averages were applied across the fleet.

Prior to firing any of the "Main Gun" Gunnery Tables (in my day TTVIA/B, TTVIIA/B, TTIIIA/B (Crew Qualification), TTIXA/B, TTXA/B (Section Qualification), TTXIA/B, TTXIIA/B (Plt Qualification),A/B being Day/Night) US Crews fired "Calibration or Live Fire Accuracy Screening Test" (LFAST) to ensure that the Fire Control System was functioning as designed, the Crews had Boresighted the weapon systems correctly, and was used to zero the tank mounted Machineguns. FCS/Boresight Data was recorded and compared to the tanks previous data prior to any rounds being fired. If the data was within tolerence (.3mil) of the previous sampling, the crew was allowed to fire. If not, the Master Gunner would have the crew redo the tanks Boresight, and submit another data sheet. If the data fell within the .3mil tolerence, the crew fired their Calibration rounds. If not, the Master Gunner had to determine the cause of the deviance.

The Main Gun Target was at 1500m and one round Sabot and one round HEAT were fired, the hit plotted on a data sheet. The round was fired using what on the M1 series is called "Normal Mode" (ie using all the FCS capabilities).

The reason US Armor doctrine changed from "Zeroing" each tank individually to a "Fleet" Zero was twofold.

1) The Army was spending hugh amounts of $$$ on training ammunition "chasing bullets".

2) (and you'll appreciate this) A British research paper on tank gun accuracy produced in the late 50's established that there were some 11 "Variable Bias's" (Vehicle Cant, Optical Path Bending, Windage Jump, Fire Control Nominality, Air Temp, Range to Target, Muzzle Velocity Variation, Gun Jump, Ammunition Propellant Temp, Crosswind, Zeroing Procedures) that come into play with each round fired that a tank crew can not control, that effect the strike of any given round.

Also, all US tanks have a Gunners Auxillary Sight (GAS) with graduated reticles for the different rounds if the primary FCS is disabled.

Bootlegger267

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 98
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 5:04:18 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: online
I think I've seen that paper. My boss had a copy, usually on his desk. I used to rib him that he had a hand in writing it, but with at least 6 feet head start when saying so. (I don't think he started work on tanks till the 80s so a bit before even his time).

My boss also produced the graticules for Challenger 1, Scorpion, Scimitar and Challenger 2. He was involved in the infamous Cat87 competition, but didn't talk about it.

I also remember him saying that the Gun Jump was different between Chieftain and Challenger 1 even though they used the same gun and ammunition. Something to do with different vehicle structures, but nobody really knew exactly why.

I'm familiar with all those variables though. I put together a software package to allow the collecting of shot strike co-ords and to transfer them into a database for use later, including recording as much detail on those variables as could be recorded. Previously the guys on the tanks had been using a massive form twice the size of A3 paper for each 'occasion'. Nightmare!

Thing is whilst all those variables might affect where the rounds ended up the main thing our guys were after was the MPI and SDs for that 'occasion'. Those were the things they tracked. So long as the SDs kept within limits they were happy. They could adjust the MPI for an individual tank prior to a war kicking off, they hoped.

I saw some US papers on using Fleet average and seemed to hold some promise. Looks like it worked

--------------------------
Game talk:
I've tried adjusting the Response and crew ratings and putting Sovs up to Response 99% and crew rating 8 makes them a lot more deadly.

I'm still thinking that defenders are shooting much too fast for prolonged engagements. From the limited info I have on the Golan battles it took the Israelis a couple of hours to rack up scores of 30+ tanks hit I think. In the game I'm seeing that in 13 minutes.

If the game evolves into tracking ammunition expenditure for each round type, eg Fin, HEAT, HE, we might see that slow down or the Sovs run out of ammo a lot quicker. I'm not sure. Be interesting to adopt it and see what happens.

What I'd like is an actual record from real engagements on rounds fired and times involved. That's probably classified though.

I know modern well trained crews can fire at daft rates in a short time, eg 10 rds a minute. Question is: would they do that over a prolonged engagement knowing that if they kept up that rate of fire they'd be out of that ammo type in 3 minutes-ish?

I suppose it depends on the circumstances? If the crews can see a horde coming at them then they would probably just let them fly and sort out the ammo loads later?

Don't know - discuss?

(in reply to bootlegger267)
Post #: 99
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 8:52:37 PM   
bootlegger267

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 2/27/2013
Status: offline
Faith in the game.....I can call for Artillery Fire and get rounds on target in 3-4 minutes, but I cant get my damn tank platoon to move out of their Primary positions for 15-20 minutes! Ughhhhhh!

Bootlegger267

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 100
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 9:45:57 PM   
Stimpak


Posts: 431
Joined: 8/23/2015
From: BC, Canada
Status: offline
Southern Storm can't come soon enough.

(in reply to bootlegger267)
Post #: 101
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/4/2016 10:46:00 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 6954
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: online
Bootlegger we feel your pain. Others have it too and it is one area we are doing a number of changes to make things more realistic in local response time and give you as the commander a bit more freedom to determine certain SOP factors for your forces. Of course this is a double edged sword as the AI will be getting the same toys.

_____________________________

Happy Holidays! 14 Update is live! Working hard on Southern Storm!

Website still in limbo

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations

(in reply to Stimpak)
Post #: 102
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/5/2016 3:01:28 AM   
bootlegger267

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 2/27/2013
Status: offline
I understand the trade off............ but ya gotta give me the benefit of the doubt. 2-3 rounds, and we were out. No orders, no need for comms.... Gone! When the hoard showed up,(thankfully they never did) we we not stupid. We had "Tripwires". If the enemy reached "X", we moved.... No comms needed. The NATO reaction times are too slow..............We trained this ****....period











We had tr

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 103
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/6/2016 2:21:06 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13246
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

Thanks Jeff, I feel happier knowing that a boatload of relevant experience is in the team

On Soviet tank gun accuracy they don't use an MRS (muzzle reference system) on their guns.
An MRS really helps with long range accuracy but also for maintaining accuracy after 10+ rounds have been fired.

But they choose not to fit an MRS as
a) it adds complexity, costs and you have to train your gunners to use them.
b) the Sovs don't think that the terrain in Germany would offer many engagement ranges over 800m let alone 2000m
c) the autoloader only holds 12 rounds of Fin anyway.

Great thread by the way



b) is probably very accurate. The US Army did a study after WW2 to determine the average engagement range between tanks. It was 400 meters for those involving US tanks. If you compare the terrain in Europe in the 1940s to that of the 1989 time period you would see more urban sprawl. Not less.

The one thing that would extend the ranges would be Thermal Imaging and that would make things really questionable about when you could or could not be seen.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 104
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/11/2016 9:42:48 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
Hi bootlegger....

Don't forget you can use waypoint timing to mimic timed and pre organised withdrawal positions....

Here is a quote from Capn Darwin from another thread..

"One work around some players have used is setting a deliberate move with retreating waypoints. Then setting delays of a good number of minutes to keep the unit in hex. Then, during an orders phase, reducing the delay to allow the unit to displace quickly to the new location. Rinse and repeat as needed."

So there is a work around until Southern storm.

(in reply to bootlegger267)
Post #: 105
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/18/2016 7:21:32 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
One question, OTS guys...

Seeing as the hexes are 500m and things are abstracted within the hex, are things like different firing positions, smoke dispensers etc modeled within the abstracted hex?

I think its sometimes easy to forget that the hexes are 500m and that within that hex there is a lot of abstraction...

IMHO and others I have been playing pbem games with believe the game with 20.11 feels as close to realistic as a wargame about a hypothetical conflict can get....



Thanks

EDIT

Also if a unit is holding in a hex with good blocking cover behind it and is in danger of being overun, I sometimes set it to screen during my order phase, then it should and usually does break contact with the enemy a lot faster than a hasty move order would, it works even better if you lay some smoke between it and the enemy, then after its out of contact with the enemy you can use a hasty move order to get it to safety or its next position... this and the waypoint delay method I think provide decent workarounds until Southern Storm is out...

< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 11/18/2016 9:36:32 AM >

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 106
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/18/2016 4:15:22 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 6954
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: online
A list of modeled combat effects off the top of my head are the following:
1. Use of smoke discharges if equipped and unit is lased and has a detector or versus a spotted ATGM launch.
2. Cover of local terrain.
3. Current order leads to exposer of subunits.
4. Weather and time of day effects.
5. Soft factor impacts (training, readiness, morale).
6. Active and passive defensive measures if equipped.
7. Intervening terrain clutter, smoke, and wrecks.
8. NBC effects if applicable.
9. Armor facing in certain situations such as tanks versus infantry in cities.
10. Fire control, stability and weapon accuracy factors.

I'm sure I'll think of more.

_____________________________

Happy Holidays! 14 Update is live! Working hard on Southern Storm!

Website still in limbo

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 107
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/19/2016 11:18:22 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
Thanks for the info Capn :-)

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 108
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/20/2016 6:27:49 PM   
mmaruda

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/13/2016
Status: offline
One thing that I find interesting is how a given unit's combat ability decreases proportionally to their ammo percentage. For example, say we have a platoon of tanks dug in on forested hill waiting in ambush. Initially they will wreck havoc among enemy tanks, but when their ammo level drops to around 60% they tend to shoot, but kill a lot less. Now, one would think that 60% ammo is still a lot, but considering a typical tank has around 40 SABOT rounds and 40 HEAT/HESH rounds, I would assume at this stage, they are low or completely out of SABOT and that means they are shooting at tanks with HEAT/HESH which are harder to put on target and have less penetration. Is that the case here? Because that would be some Steel Beasts level simulation right there.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 109
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/21/2016 12:48:09 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 6954
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: online
Mmaruda, we are not tracking every shell in every tank, but we do take into account the drop off in RoF as ammo and readiness drop during an engagement. The AI is also making on the fly determination as to using AP or HEAT rounds versus the target. Same for tube launched ATGMs.

_____________________________

Happy Holidays! 14 Update is live! Working hard on Southern Storm!

Website still in limbo

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations

(in reply to mmaruda)
Post #: 110
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/21/2016 4:37:54 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: mmaruda

... considering a typical tank has around 40 SABOT rounds and 40 HEAT/HESH rounds, ....


Actually it's a lot less than that.

Total Rounds carried for various tanks that I have data for are in the order of:
Israeli Centurion: 72rds
Chieftain: 64rds 50/50 AP/HESH
Challenger 1: 52rds 50/50 AP/HESH
M-60A3: 63rds 50/50 AP/HE
M1A1: 40 rds 50/50 AP/HE
M1: 55rds 50/50 AP/HE
Leo1: 60rds 50/50 AP/HE
Leo2: 42rds 50/50 AP/HE
T-55: 43rds 23AP, 3 HEAT, 17HE
T-62: 40rds 14AP, 7 HEAT, 19HE
T-64/72/80: 40rds, 12AP, 6 HEAT, 22HE

As you can see I think most tanks will be out of AP pretty quickly.

Hope this helps, B

< Message edited by battlerbritain -- 11/21/2016 4:40:33 PM >

(in reply to mmaruda)
Post #: 111
RE: Faith in the game. - 11/22/2016 12:45:36 AM   
bootlegger267

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 2/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

quote:

ORIGINAL: mmaruda

... considering a typical tank has around 40 SABOT rounds and 40 HEAT/HESH rounds, ....


Actually it's a lot less than that.

Total Rounds carried for various tanks that I have data for are in the order of:
Israeli Centurion: 72rds
Chieftain: 64rds 50/50 AP/HESH
Challenger 1: 52rds 50/50 AP/HESH
M-60A3: 63rds 50/50 AP/HE
M1A1: 40 rds 50/50 AP/HE
M1: 55rds 50/50 AP/HE
Leo1: 60rds 50/50 AP/HE
Leo2: 42rds 50/50 AP/HE
T-55: 43rds 23AP, 3 HEAT, 17HE
T-62: 40rds 14AP, 7 HEAT, 19HE
T-64/72/80: 40rds, 12AP, 6 HEAT, 22HE

As you can see I think most tanks will be out of AP pretty quickly.

Hope this helps, B



Bingo!

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 112
RE: Faith in the game. - 12/16/2016 7:34:31 PM   
KungPao


Posts: 123
Joined: 4/25/2016
From: Red China
Status: offline
Hi MaxDamage
I don’t think there is a huge technology gap between Chieftain and T80BV. Different generation, yes, but that doesn’t mean T80 will be a guaranteed winner. Chieftain is not an obsolete tank also. It’s more like a Panther shooting a post war Patton, Panther can knock out Patton.

I watched your video clips for testing at 1000m and 3000m. I believe the 3000m test exposed a real issue of this game, I will talk this later. For the 1000m test, it’s like a knife fight in a telephone booth. 120mm L11 is very capable to penetrate the T80BV at this range.

I see your frustration for spotting at 1000m. Unlike many other members on this forum, I don’t have an experience of a tank crewmember, but I see myself as an experienced gamer. Maybe you can try some sim game, like steel beast, T-72 Balkan in fire, or even ARMA. Put yourself behind the scope with a narrow FOV, you will feel the pain. And the TI makes the difference.

I have a question for game developer here too, does the larger size of soviet units influence the detection?

And for the 3000m test, you lost 7 T80. I noticed that all 7 KIA are not destroyed but fallout. I read Flashpoint campaign treat main gun damaged and immobilized as fallout. And I think here is an area this game can get improved in the future. IRL, many heavily damaged AFV will stay in the battle or formation. The one with damaged gun help on spotting, immobilized one can still shot the gun.

Maybe in the future OTS can build a engine to track detail description on each AFV, everyone in the unit will have a status report of the gun, sight, radio and track. The damaged unit can be split from the mother counter and form a damaged unit counter? Ah, I know I am a greed customer, I asked for too much.

My 50 cents



< Message edited by KungPao -- 12/16/2016 7:35:45 PM >


_____________________________

Sir? Do you want to order a Kung Pao Chicken or a Kung Fu Chicken?

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 113
RE: Faith in the game. - 12/16/2016 7:45:17 PM   
KungPao


Posts: 123
Joined: 4/25/2016
From: Red China
Status: offline
Another question for OTS, Chieftains AP value 29, is that the penetration of L15 APDS @ 60 degree armor at 2000m, then divided by 10?


_____________________________

Sir? Do you want to order a Kung Pao Chicken or a Kung Fu Chicken?

(in reply to KungPao)
Post #: 114
RE: Faith in the game. - 12/16/2016 11:22:52 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 6954
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: online
An AP of 29 is roughly 435mm (29 * 15) at effective range 1750-2000m (don't have the data in front of me).

_____________________________

Happy Holidays! 14 Update is live! Working hard on Southern Storm!

Website still in limbo

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations

(in reply to KungPao)
Post #: 115
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> RE: Faith in the game. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152